Clegg v. . Bishop

*565 Adams, J. This is a suit to enforce the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of a lot in the city of Greensboro. In bis answer the defendant denied the contract declared on and thereby imposed upon the plaintiff the necessity' of showing that the contract bad been executed in compliance with the statute of frauds. Winders v. Hill, 144 N. C., 617; Henry v. Hilliard, 155 N. C., 372, 379; Stephens v. Midyette, 161 N. C., 323. This statute provides that all contracts to sell or convey land shall be void unless put in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized. C. S., 988. Tbe party to be charged in tbis action is the defendant; therefore unless the paper offered .in evidence was signed by him or by some one thereto lawfully authorized by him it was properly excluded. Brown v. Hobbs, 154 N. C., 545; Wellman v. Horn, 157 N. C., 170, Tbe paper or memorandum offered by the plaintiff does not show the required “signing” by the defendant or bis agent. It .embodies an obligation on the part of the plaintiff to purchase the lot; but on the part of the defendant it neither embodies nor purports to embody any obligation to convey. It was a printed form card prepared before the sale on which were written the words and figures “3— $111 per foot” in the blank spaces. There is no evidence that the words “American Land Company” were written at the time of the sale or that the memorandum was physically connected with any paper signed by the defendant. Dickerson v. Simmons, 141 N. C., 325; Love v. Harris, 156 N. C., 88; Flowe v. Hartwick, 167 N. C., 448; Keith v. Bailey, 185 N. C., 262. ¥e find no error and affirm tbe judgment of tbe lower court. Affirmed.